motherscratcher wrote:I'd like to think that RG3 will fall to #4 and we can grab him there, but the more I think about it, if we have to trade up to get him then that's what we should do. If we come out of this draft without RG3 it will be a failure, no matter how many other holes are filled.

Here's a thought. Why not wait ... if someone picks RG3 ahead of us, THEN make an offer. I wouldn't think it would cost us any more than if we'd traded for the choice before the choice was made. And if the team that picked RG3 wouldn't deal, then better luck next year ... move on and get the BPA.

FUDU wrote:I see it as there is such a thing as trading up, and then there is trading up. No way in hell do I trade away 3 high picks to move up 1-2 spots to take a guy that isn't the sure fire thing in this draft (RG3), when those picks could improve the team enough that maybe next year you have so few holes that making such a move to fill your QB needs makes more sense.

You do realize that one of those high picks is our own at #4? So this concept of "three high picks" is a fallacy. Unless you plan on not using our own pick and banking it for a rainy day?

The net cost to the Browns, in this hypothetical scenario, IS ONE ADDITIONAL PICK - THE ONE WE GOT FROM THE FALCONS WHICH SHOULD FALL AROUND 21-23.

That's it. One additional pick, and an extra pick at that. Well worth the risk to move up to #2 overall to grab RGIII. If the Rams or whomever is in the 2 hole says "no" then you have a decision on how much more you want to offer. But let's please stop the "mortgaging the future" because we would need to use the #21 overall.

Regardless of your personal approach to drafting the next elite QB (including RG3 or not) those picks are indeed OUR assets now no matter how we got them. So they can in fact be used in any way to improve the time. But that doesn't mean you throw any or all of them away either b/c of how & why you acquired them.

Bottom line is you have the opportunity to pick 3 times in the first 36 slots and that equates to the opportunity to make a significant stride toward improvement (with this GM calling the shots). With this roster that could/probably should mean 3 starters. However no matter the approach as to how to use those picks playing it off as is there is some free lunch involved which justifies added risk taking is short sighted and could be very foolish.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:I see it as there is such a thing as trading up, and then there is trading up. No way in hell do I trade away 3 high picks to move up 1-2 spots to take a guy that isn't the sure fire thing in this draft (RG3), when those picks could improve the team enough that maybe next year you have so few holes that making such a move to fill your QB needs makes more sense.

You do realize that one of those high picks is our own at #4? So this concept of "three high picks" is a fallacy. Unless you plan on not using our own pick and banking it for a rainy day?

The net cost to the Browns, in this hypothetical scenario, IS ONE ADDITIONAL PICK - THE ONE WE GOT FROM THE FALCONS WHICH SHOULD FALL AROUND 21-23.

That's it. One additional pick, and an extra pick at that. Well worth the risk to move up to #2 overall to grab RGIII. If the Rams or whomever is in the 2 hole says "no" then you have a decision on how much more you want to offer. But let's please stop the "mortgaging the future" because we would need to use the #21 overall.

Regardless of your personal approach to drafting the next elite QB (including RG3 or not) those picks are indeed OUR assets now no matter how we got them. So they can in fact be used in any way to improve the time. But that doesn't mean you throw any or all of them away either b/c of how & why you acquired them.

Bottom line is you have the opportunity to pick 3 times in the first 36 slots and that equates to the opportunity to make a significant stride toward improvement (with this GM calling the shots). With this roster that could/probably should mean 3 starters. However no matter the approach as to how to use those picks playing it off as is there is some free lunch involved which justifies added risk taking is short sighted and could be very foolish.

I'm not advocating moving into the #1 slot, so I don't need to use the second round pick.

Not sure where I ever wrote anything about a free lunch - and as far as starters with the first round picks (mine and the one from Atlanta) I am planning on drafting a QB who will start for the next 10 years. I will assure you that the benefit to this team from using #21 to move up and get a franchise QB will far outweigh whatever other starter you would advocate taking at that position.

The risk is greater, obviously. But then tell me this - if we do not grab the franchise QB in 2012, then when?

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

Quick, lazy question: is that pick value matrix current? By that I mean is it before or after the rookie wage scale went into effect that made top picks less expensive and, therefore, theoretically more valuable in terms of what you might need to give up?

peeker643 wrote:Quick, lazy question: is that pick value matrix current? By that I mean is it before or after the rookie wage scale went into effect that made top picks less expensive and, therefore, theoretically more valuable in terms of what you might need to give up?

motherscratcher wrote:Of course this scenario sucks balls and puts us behind yet another year, but I'm not sure were the QB comes from, if not the top of the draft. Another bonus with 2 1st rounders next year is we would get to have this same exact conversation again next year. Good times!

I advocated for this earlier. If you cant get 1 of the top 2, trade away one of your first round picks for next year, if possible, and have the bullets in the gun to try to make your trade for an ELITE qb next year. Don't draft a maybe this year and hope it pans out; save a first for a guy that is as "cant miss" as possible, so we dont have to have this merry go round every year.

If Luck, Griffin, and Kalil go 1-3, wouldn't mind grabbing Blackmon with 4, trading the falcons pick, and just letting Colt have the reigns for another "meh" season next year. Maybe we get a real coach with the QBotF, also.

Check me out at Dawgsbynature, where I write stuff, or @twitter as Josh Finney.

FUDU wrote:I see it as there is such a thing as trading up, and then there is trading up. No way in hell do I trade away 3 high picks to move up 1-2 spots to take a guy that isn't the sure fire thing in this draft (RG3), when those picks could improve the team enough that maybe next year you have so few holes that making such a move to fill your QB needs makes more sense.

You do realize that one of those high picks is our own at #4? So this concept of "three high picks" is a fallacy. Unless you plan on not using our own pick and banking it for a rainy day?

The net cost to the Browns, in this hypothetical scenario, IS ONE ADDITIONAL PICK - THE ONE WE GOT FROM THE FALCONS WHICH SHOULD FALL AROUND 21-23.

That's it. One additional pick, and an extra pick at that. Well worth the risk to move up to #2 overall to grab RGIII. If the Rams or whomever is in the 2 hole says "no" then you have a decision on how much more you want to offer. But let's please stop the "mortgaging the future" because we would need to use the #21 overall.

Regardless of your personal approach to drafting the next elite QB (including RG3 or not) those picks are indeed OUR assets now no matter how we got them. So they can in fact be used in any way to improve the time. But that doesn't mean you throw any or all of them away either b/c of how & why you acquired them.

Bottom line is you have the opportunity to pick 3 times in the first 36 slots and that equates to the opportunity to make a significant stride toward improvement (with this GM calling the shots). With this roster that could/probably should mean 3 starters. However no matter the approach as to how to use those picks playing it off as is there is some free lunch involved which justifies added risk taking is short sighted and could be very foolish.

I'm not advocating moving into the #1 slot, so I don't need to use the second round pick.

Not sure where I ever wrote anything about a free lunch - and as far as starters with the first round picks (mine and the one from Atlanta) I am planning on drafting a QB who will start for the next 10 years. I will assure you that the benefit to this team from using #21 to move up and get a franchise QB will far outweigh whatever other starter you would advocate taking at that position.

The risk is greater, obviously. But then tell me this - if we do not grab the franchise QB in 2012, then when?

Quote box multiplication for the nuisance factor...not for you matt.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there is only 1 true HR QB in this draft (Luck) and even though the next best (RG3, whom I do like) could be enough the fact still remains you better be right if you give up this whole draft for him b/c if you're wrong you are in the land of complete suck for at least a few more seasons. So yeah if not now then when applies here, but be right or get the fuck out of Dodge after you're wrong.

If we use our best 3 picks we can land a difference maker at 4 (position other than QB) and legit starters elsewhere going forward at 21 and 36. All or nothing isn't required, IMO that is really all there is to debate in this draft.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

until proven otherwise, Heckert could very much be Savage deux. And saddled with the Crennel-like coach as a HC, it's hard to argue that point.

Until we see the Browns post consistent .500 (meaning anywhere 7-9 on up) ball +playoff appearances/pro-bowlers, his track record means nothing.

In regards to drafting a QB with the top 2 coming out. I honestly believe that with either of those guys playing for the Browns this season that were at least talking about being in that range of being at least a 7-9 football team.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

mistero wrote:According to the draft pick value system , it would take at least our other number 1 from Atlanta (value if pick 25 is 740) and next years number one (always worth less than current year picks...maybe worth 800 points).

No offense, Mistero, but you can take a big steaming deuce on that draft value chart.

Not only is it likely pre-rookie-salary-scale, it's also invalid because of the QB's in question. A pick's value is what people will pay for it, and they'll have to pay out the ass to get to #1 or #2 this year, even from #4.

pup wrote:As far as being a pro, NFL QB, Andrew Luck could play against the Steelers Sunday and give the Browns a better chance to win than they have. If today was his first practice. I cannot say the same about RG3.

I hope you don't really believe that pup. Not saying it is impossible, but it is highly unlikely, and down right not probable in the least. Do I think Luck will be head & shoulders better than Colt McCoy, sure I do. I also believe it will take a little time for Luck to get his feet underneath him. The only advantage to having Luck this Sunday would be his arm strength, otherwise he has no real measurable advantages over Colt at this moment in time, comparing apples to apples competition. Can he close that gap and quickly (with maybe a few weeks of practice and a few real games) IMO yes, but not as you state.

You mentioned arm strength. I would argue the other measurable advantages that Luck has over Colt are:

1. Height2. Weight3. Accuracy4. Mobility (the ability to not get killed in the NFL while scrambling)5. Arm Strength (the difference is so great that I have to mention it twice)

You could also argue advantages like personal confidence and fellow-players' belief in his ability, but those wouldn't be readily measurable and are subject to debate.

And, yeah, I too think that Andrew Luck takes the field against Pittstown on Sunday and does just as well as Colt Wallace. It's not like we're talking about All Pro performers here - a stud QB should be able to enter a game cold and still hold his own against career backups (which Wallace is and Colt will be).

pup wrote:THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OK QB PLAY IN TODAY'S NFL. YOU ARE EITHER A STUD AND SUPER BOWL LEADING MATERIAL OR YOU ARE NOT. JOE FLACCO, MARK SANCHEZ, ANDY DALTON, ALEX SMITH..............WILL ALL DO A NICE JOB OF GETTING YOU INTO THE PLAYOFFS. BUT IF YOU WANT TO WIN A SUPER BOWL YOU NEED TO GET A STUD. I NO LONGER CARE ABOUT BEING RESPECTABLE. I CARE ABOUT WINNING A SUPER BOWL.

pup wrote:As far as being a pro, NFL QB, Andrew Luck could play against the Steelers Sunday and give the Browns a better chance to win than they have. If today was his first practice. I cannot say the same about RG3.

I hope you don't really believe that pup. Not saying it is impossible, but it is highly unlikely, and down right not probable in the least. Do I think Luck will be head & shoulders better than Colt McCoy, sure I do. I also believe it will take a little time for Luck to get his feet underneath him. The only advantage to having Luck this Sunday would be his arm strength, otherwise he has no real measurable advantages over Colt at this moment in time, comparing apples to apples competition. Can he close that gap and quickly (with maybe a few weeks of practice and a few real games) IMO yes, but not as you state.

You mentioned arm strength. I would argue the other measurable advantages that Luck has over Colt are:

1. Height2. Weight3. Accuracy4. Mobility (the ability to not get killed in the NFL while scrambling)5. Arm Strength (the difference is so great that I have to mention it twice)

You could also argue advantages like personal confidence and fellow-players' belief in his ability, but those wouldn't be readily measurable and are subject to debate.

And, yeah, I too think that Andrew Luck takes the field against Pittstown on Sunday and does just as well as Colt Wallace. It's not like we're talking about All Pro performers here - a stud QB should be able to enter a game cold and still hold his own against career backups (which Wallace is and Colt will be).

Overall size yeah Luck has the advantage, I just didn't really think people would reach for that as a talking point. As far as more mobile, no. Colt is more than mobile enough and is really a bad point to bring up in comparison to Luck.

In keeping with the original claim made by pup, we'd get creamed by Shitsburgh this week with Luck at QB, unless there are new NFL rules allowing us to make trades, pick up FAs or draft things like lineman and play makers this time of year.

No matter how bad we want Luck or RG3 nothing changes the fact our Oline sucks and our WRs are pretty damn bad.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:Overall size yeah Luck has the advantage, I just didn't really think people would reach for that as a talking point. As far as more mobile, no. Colt is more than mobile enough and is really a bad point to bring up in comparison to Luck.

I thought you might. Would you say POS is more mobile than Colt? Probably not in the traditional sense. But he is in the sense that he can avoid pressure in the effort to make a play much better than Colt does. Plus, when he scrambles, he rarely gets lit up.

Luck is mobile in the POS sense. Colt may run faster or whatever, but will get killed if he does it too much. He simply cannot survive in the NFL running the ball more than once or twice a game, and that negates any perceived mobility people think he has.

FUDU wrote:In keeping with the original claim made by pup, we'd get creamed by Shitsburgh this week with Luck at QB, unless there are new NFL rules allowing us to make trades, pick up FAs or draft things like lineman and play makers this time of year.

No matter how bad we want Luck or RG3 nothing changes the fact our Oline sucks and our WRs are pretty damn bad.

I've heard you make that argument before, and I respectfully call it bullshit.

The "rest of the team is so bad that no QB could succeed" argument is just incredibly dull. There ain't a team in this league no matter how bad - even STL - that couldn't be massively improved by adding an elite QB.

Obviously a shot in the dark at this point. But gun to my head, that's the scenario I can see playing out. Was or Mia jumping us while we dick around or try and get too cute.

The valid point, which was brought up in this thread - if not a franchise QB now, with such a high pick - when?

You're at the top of the draft. You gotta strike this year. If you don't got the balls to do what needs done to get Luck or RG3 this year, do everything you can to add another #1 next year.

YMMV

I've now learned to make sure to let the poster know that I am not attacking them when I state that any mock draft that includes a mock trade isn't worthy of being flushed with my excess ball hair, especially when they acknowledge it as a shot in the dark.

There may very well be a trade, but it's just a mock on top of a mock which means I might as well be reading a Narnia book mascarading as a report on market trending.

Obviously a shot in the dark at this point. But gun to my head, that's the scenario I can see playing out. Was or Mia jumping us while we dick around or try and get too cute.

The valid point, which was brought up in this thread - if not a franchise QB now, with such a high pick - when?

You're at the top of the draft. You gotta strike this year. If you don't got the balls to do what needs done to get Luck or RG3 this year, do everything you can to add another #1 next year.

YMMV

I've now learned to make sure to let the poster know that I am not attacking them when I state that any mock draft that includes a mock trade isn't worthy of being flushed with my excess ball hair, especially when they acknowledge it as a shot in the dark.

There may very well be a trade, but it's just a mock on top of a mock which means I might as well be reading a Narnia book mascarading as a report on market trending.

Exactly.

My point in posting it is that it seems like the most likely scenario to me at this point. Browns have to be AGGRESSIVE if they really like and want RG3.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

Mobility as it relates to the NFL is different than not being a stationary target in the pocket.

It's the quick-twitch ability to make guys miss, keep a play alive, roll in either direction (not just right like Colt) and also still be able to make plays on either side of the field or break a play with your legs.

In that sense of mobility, the NFL sense, McCoy is not mobile (enough).

Talking to JTA about this last night, one of the big reasons for Cam's success is defenses are limited to certain coverages because they have to dedicate personnel to making sure Newton doesn't have space to run. No need to do that with McCoy either.

Play man and the deep and intermediate routes open his personal running game. Play zone or dedicate personnel to making sure he doesn't run and he can make enough throws to hurt you. When he rounds out as a passer, forget it.

Cam, Luck and, to an extent, RGIII also don't have the field shrunk in half when they move.

Hikohadon wrote:The "rest of the team is so bad that no QB could succeed" argument is just incredibly dull. There ain't a team in this league no matter how bad - even STL - that couldn't be massively improved by adding an elite QB.

And, yes, I just realized how much I'm not interested in Sam Bradford.

Hikohadon wrote:I thought you might. Would you say POS is more mobile than Colt? Probably not in the traditional sense. But he is in the sense that he can avoid pressure in the effort to make a play much better than Colt does. Plus, when he scrambles, he rarely gets lit up.

Luck is mobile in the POS sense. Colt may run faster or whatever, but will get killed if he does it too much. He simply cannot survive in the NFL running the ball more than once or twice a game, and that negates any perceived mobility people think he has.

Agreed, Colt will not have a long career taking hits as he does, due to both the way God made him AND our Oline.

Hiko wrote:I've heard you make that argument before, and I respectfully call it bullshit.

The "rest of the team is so bad that no QB could succeed" argument is just incredibly dull. There ain't a team in this league no matter how bad - even STL - that couldn't be massively improved by adding an elite QB.

Don't mistake me saying that as voiding Colt of blame, I think it is a combination of everything, but I will say Colt has shown me enough to put more of the blame on the Oline AND WRs in general than him. But the problem is you using the label elite QB when talking about a college prospect that hasn't even taken a snap in training camp yet. Do I think Luck WILL be elite, yes (RG3, eh not so sure) but either way to suggest they're better prepared to deal with the Steelers this week (than Colt) is completely discrediting the experience of starting 16+ games in the NFL.

It's a bit similar to the difference in how Seneca can look at time compared to Colt, Seneca has that much more time in the game and the offense, in the end is Seneca the guy (v. Colt or better than Colt) no. In time Luck will no doubt prove he is much better than Colt, it just isn't going to be with 3 days practice against a top tier NFL D.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

But I also want to reiterate my point on our O-Line not being noticeably worse than anyone else's. I watch games every week where even the elite guys are getting tattooed after passes. And the fact that Seneca takes noticeably less hits than Colt says more to me about Colt than it does about the O Line.

FUDU wrote:Well I don't see Rogers and Brady running for their lives very often, definitely not getting plastered.

Isn't Rogers the 2nd highest sacked guy in the league?

Also, wasn't Colt McCoy a better option than Jake Delhomme against the Steelers, even though he was making his first start? And remember, that mean Mangini would not give him the playbook early enough so it isn't like he was all that seasoned.

Take what you want from sack statistics but to take away something like that is a bit much pup, Cam and Rogers are both sacked more than Colt so does that mean Colt is more mobile than them, AND that he is better than them?

Stop it please.

My guess is the reason guys like Rogers/Newton/other athletic QBs acquire higher sack totals at times is b/c of their ability to extend plays a little longer and sometimes they just don't get back to the line of scrimmage when on the run. Pretty big difference between your QB getting sacked and your QB having to run for his life as soon as he gets the ball due to a defender getting through untouched.

As far as Delhomme... the argument to start Colt probably had more to do with Colt being able to move well v. Delhomme being dead, yeah I'm pretty sure it did, not quite the case when talking about a rookie prospect v. Colt.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

1. RG3 does not seem to be a prototypical WCO QB, so why would the Browns draft him? (Wait, silly question, the Browns love bashing square pegs into round holes)

2. This coaching staff is just as likely to properly develop a QB prospecct as I am to sprout a third arm just to start dismissively wanking everytime the discussion of the Browns future franchise QB comes up.

2012 Timeline: The Browns start a new QB, Pat Shurmur continues to completely fail the team, The Big No-Show continues to laugh all the way to the bank IN SEATTLE to cash Randy Lerner's checks, and Randy Lerner hits the reset button again when the team finishes 3-13 next year.

I suggest you don't watch many GB games b/c Rodgers doesn't run that often.

I suggest that half the sacks that Colt takes are his fault because he holds the ball too long.

I suggest a lot of the pressure was brought because opposing Defenses knew that Colt couldn't handle it. I suggest that teams don't blitz Rodgers that way because they know he'll make them pay.

I suggest that Pashos is indeed a turd, but is hardly getting beat every play as some would like to believe.

I suggest that the Browns O Line is probably every bit as good as if not better than GB's. I further suggest that a veteran QB like Wallace seems to have significantly more time with the same O Line that Colt had.

I suggest that in today's NFL, QB play is so important that it can make everyone around the QB look good/bad depending on how good/bad the QB play is.

I suggest that if you put Rodgers on the Browns they are at least 5 games better, and if you put Colt on the Packers they are at least 5 games worse.

I suggest you look at Indy as an example of this before you disregard it.

I suggest the Packers would also be dead in the water without Rodgers since they have no running game, fairly poor O Line play, and their D is porous.

I suggest we have to change the way we think, that we have to understand that Dilfers and Brad Johnsons won't be winning titles any more, that flawed teams with great QB play no longer have Houston Oilers results but have Green Bay Packers results, that RB's are now no more important than TE's, that having an elite QB is now essential to competing for championships in this league, and that the NFL that we knew as a kid is for all intents and purposes dead.

You may refuse to agree with me, but that's why I think that the idea that no QB can win behind the Browns line is archaic and flawed.

1. RG3 does not seem to be a prototypical WCO QB, so why would the Browns draft him? (Wait, silly question, the Browns love bashing square pegs into round holes)

2. This coaching staff is just as likely to properly develop a QB prospecct as I am to sprout a third arm just to start dismissively wanking everytime the discussion of the Browns future franchise QB comes up.

2012 Timeline: The Browns start a new QB, Pat Shurmur continues to completely fail the team, The Big No-Show continues to laugh all the way to the bank IN SEATTLE to cash Randy Lerner's checks, and Randy Lerner hits the reset button again when the team finishes 3-13 next year.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Heard someone compare RG3 with Favre the other day as far as competencies (let's hope that RG3 is smarter than Favre). Holmgren was a big fan of Brett.

Rodgers is in a WCO and throws the ball deep plenty. So does Vick.

RG3 is also super-accurate. Still waiting for someone to tell me why he can't throw short passes just as well as Colt (as if Colt threw them well).

I share your pain that no QB will succeed under the Shurminator, but that doesn't mean that you don't try to get a franchise guy like RG3 and hope that Shurmy is gone long before RG3 is.

I suggest you don't watch many GB games b/c Rodgers doesn't run that often.

I suggest that half the sacks that Colt takes are his fault because he holds the ball too long.

I suggest a lot of the pressure was brought because opposing Defenses knew that Colt couldn't handle it. I suggest that teams don't blitz Rodgers that way because they know he'll make them pay.

I suggest that Pashos is indeed a turd, but is hardly getting beat every play as some would like to believe.

I suggest that the Browns O Line is probably every bit as good as if not better than GB's. I further suggest that a veteran QB like Wallace seems to have significantly more time with the same O Line that Colt had.

I suggest that in today's NFL, QB play is so important that it can make everyone around the QB look good/bad depending on how good/bad the QB play is.

I suggest that if you put Rodgers on the Browns they are at least 5 games better, and if you put Colt on the Packers they are at least 5 games worse.

I suggest you look at Indy as an example of this before you disregard it.

I suggest the Packers would also be dead in the water without Rodgers since they have no running game, fairly poor O Line play, and their D is porous.

I suggest we have to change the way we think, that we have to understand that Dilfers and Brad Johnsons won't be winning titles any more, that flawed teams with great QB play no longer have Houston Oilers results but have Green Bay Packers results, that RB's are now no more important than TE's, that having an elite QB is now essential to competing for championships in this league, and that the NFL that we knew as a kid is for all intents and purposes dead.

You may refuse to agree with me, but that's why I think that the idea that no QB can win behind the Browns line is archaic and flawed.

This post should be given it's own thread and pinned at the top. That way everytime we have to read the "BUILD THE REST OF THE TEAM!!!" bullshit we can just drop a link.

Hikohadon wrote:I suggest we have to change the way we think, that we have to understand that Dilfers and Brad Johnsons won't be winning titles any more, that flawed teams with great QB play no longer have Houston Oilers results but have Green Bay Packers results, that RB's are now no more important than TE's, that having an elite QB is now essential to competing for championships in this league, and that the NFL that we knew as a kid is for all intents and purposes dead.

This part is wrong.

I've seen more than enough "This is how it is, this is how it's going to be, you have to have this, not that"s since I've been watching the NFL (and sports in general) to know they're always, always wrong.

Hikohadon wrote:I suggest we have to change the way we think, that we have to understand that Dilfers and Brad Johnsons won't be winning titles any more, that flawed teams with great QB play no longer have Houston Oilers results but have Green Bay Packers results, that RB's are now no more important than TE's, that having an elite QB is now essential to competing for championships in this league, and that the NFL that we knew as a kid is for all intents and purposes dead.

This part is wrong.

I've seen more than enough "This is how it is, this is how it's going to be, you have to have this, not that"s since I've been watching the NFL (and sports in general) to know they're always, always wrong.

Also, Eli Manning is not an elite QB, and 2007 wasn't that long ago.

There are no absolutes. However, it's a safe bet.

Eli Manning is damn close enough to elite to win a SB with a great Defensive effort. But the Giants don't win that SB with Trent Dilfer. Your QB has to play at an elite level through the playoffs for you to win it now. Eli, Flacco, Matt Ryan... these are all guys that have enough talent to win it all if they get hot (play "elite") at the right time.

Once Alex Smith or Mark Sanchez or Tim Tebow win a SB, I will declare that I'm wrong.

Thus, it's easier just to have an elite QB, then you don't have to worry about whether or not your inconsistent QB will catch fire at just the right time. That's why you'll continue to see a majority of SB's won by elite QB's.

Again, as long as the QB plays at an elite level come playoff time, you can overcome his regular season performance.

And numbers make absolutely no points with me. I can watch Colt McCoy and Eli Manning and no amount of numbers in the universe will convince me that Eli isn't obviously superior to Colt. I don't know why you'd even bother to try and make that argument.

How are you going to get the NFL to stop officiating and rule making in a manor that ensures that it stays the way it is right now for the next decade? Because that is the only way to stop this trend DOODOOO